S. Korea may clash with Google over Internet regulation differences: KCC investigates Google hoping to turn up other illegalities, not for real name system evasion, while netizens criticize Internet lawsby englishhani@hani.co.krApril 17, 2009

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The South Korean government is considering legal action against Google following the refusal of Google-owned Web site YouTube to implement the “real name system,” which requires any Web site that has more than 100,000 users per day to confirm users’ personal information such as their real names and resident registration numbers when they want to post comments or upload content.

The situation is showing signs of developing into a clash between the South Korean government, which is seeking to extend the application of its internet regulations to all Internet businesses, and the world’s largest Internet company, which is trying to maintain its principle of “freedom of expression” based on the option of exercising the “freedom of anonymous expression” on the Internet that it maintains elsewhere throughout the world.

An official at the Korea Communications Commission (KCC), who wished to remain nameless, said Thursday that the KCC was “in an uproar” over Google’s April 9 decision. “The people higher up said that they could not just leave Google alone and told us to find something to punish them with, so the related team is researching possible illegalities,” the official said.

On April 9, Google announced that it would be blocking users with South Korean nationality from uploading content and posting comments on YouTube Korea’s Web site, effectively rejecting the implementation of the real name system. Initially, the KCC reacted tepidly, calling the case “not something to take administrative measures over,” but in just a few days, it has taken a 180-degree turn. According to sources, the KCC has apparently made the determination that Google’s decisions have represented an evasion of regulations and that it is not a situation that they can leave alone as a regulatory authority.

KCC network policy official Hwang Cheol-jeung says that the commission will be examining whether or not Google has engaged in illegal activities in any of the various services it operates in South Korea. Since Google’s Korea Unit is conducting many activities in South Korea besides operating the YouTube Korea video site, including search and keyword-based advertising, observers are concerned that this investigation could potentially turn up illegal practices in areas such as internet obscenity, unwholesome advertising, and copyright infringements.

Choi See-joong, chairman of KCC, expressed strong dissatisfaction with Google at a Wednesday meeting of the National Assembly’s Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C). At the CCSTB&C meeting, Grand National Party lawmaker Na Kyung-won said that with Google’s measure, “They are speaking as though Korea is a backwards Internet nation that is intensifying its Internet censorship. Why are you just standing around doing nothing?” Choi responded that plans were underway to “send a message of severe dismay to Google about their terribly commercial approach with which it has tried to deceive people by a transparent guile.” He also said that he planned to meet with the head of Google Korea to determine the company’s true motives, and that the KCC was currently conducting legality investigations.

Meanwhile, Google Korea Unit head Lee Won-jin appeared on the MBC show “Son Seok-hee’s Focused View” Thursday and said, “There are no ‘true motives’ behind the shutdown of upload functions. What you see is everything.” Lee added that it was “a difficult decision, made after extensive discussions with the head office, and with a long-term view on the significance of the South Korean market.” Analysts are interpreting that this means the decision came from Google’s headquarters, and as such is not liable to be influenced by the South Korean government’s will. Lee also said, “In refusing to accept this regulation, we support opportunities for freedom of expression in South Korea’s Internet culture.”

South Korean companies are concerned about issues of “reverse discrimination” in Internet regulations. “When I saw Google’s decision, I was jealous and at the same time deeply distressed,” said an official at one portal site. “South Korean businesses will have to endure criticism from users while following unwanted regulations,” the official added.

Han Chang-min, Korea Internet Corporations Association secretary-general, expressed the frustration experienced by several Internet companies, “The fair thing to do would be to apply the real name system to all foreign sites accessible to users in South Korea, or else remove the regulation for South Korean businesses.”

Industry experts suggest that the differences between the South Korean government and Google over how to apply the new Internet regulations reveals the fallacy of creating regulation that applies to only specific geographical regions on the Internet, which is a “network of networks.” According to the government, the difficulty it faces is that it is impossible to regulate Internet policy if it leaves cases like Google’s alone. Jeon Byeong-guk, director of the Internet consulting company SearchMaster.co.kr, says that the government and Google “have come face-to-face in a situation where there are no points of agreement.” Jeon added, “Since Google does not have a large share of the South Korean market, the question is what is to be gained from the government simply cracking its whip.”

Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers wins high court appeal against conviction: Accountant says he feels 'relieved and vindicated' as court rules his joke tweet about blowing up an airport was not menacingby Owen Bowcottlegal affairs correspondent27 July 2012

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Paul Chambers, who was found guilty of sending a menacing tweet, has won his high court challenge against his conviction. Outside the court, Chambers, 27, said he felt "relieved and vindicated", adding: "It's ridiculous it ever got so far."

He had tweeted in frustration when he discovered that Robin Hood airport in South Yorkshire was closed because of snow. Eager to see his girlfriend, he sent out a tweet on the publicly accessible site declaring: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

He has always maintained that he did not believe anyone would take his "silly joke" seriously.

The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, sitting with Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Griffith Williams, said: "We have concluded that, on an objective assessment, the decision of the crown court that this 'tweet' constituted or included a message of a menacing character was not open to it.

"On this basis, the appeal against conviction must be allowed."

Chambers said outside court: "It was a long, hard road. I would like to thank everyone on Twitter." He had lost two jobs because of his conviction, he said, but "it was now time to move on".

After the judgment Chambers's supporters accused the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of wasting public funds in pursuing its action against the trainee accountant.

Louise Mensch, who is Chambers's constituency MP, was in court to hear him cleared. "The CPS owe the whole country an enormous apology," she said, "for having wasted public money and put him through two and a half years of serious stress for what was a joke.

"When parliament returns we will be asking searching questions about why freedom of speech was trashed. There was nothing menacing about this message. It was completely obvious."

Chambers had arrived at the snow-bound airport on 6 January 2010 hoping to fly to Belfast to meet Sarah Tonner, whom he had met on Twitter where she was known as @CrazyColours.

A week later he was arrested by four officers from South Yorkshire police who visited his office at a car distribution firm in Doncaster. Chambers subsequently lost his job as a financial supervisor.

He was prosecuted under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

In May 2010 Chambers was convicted by the district judge Jonathan Bennett sitting at Doncaster magistrates court and fined £1,000. In November 2010 the crown court judge Jacqueline Davies, sitting with two magistrates, dismissed his appeal, saying that the electronic communication was "clearly menacing" and that airport staff were sufficiently concerned to report it.

John Cooper QC, who represented Chambers, said: "It's an important decision for social networks. It means that in future not only does a message have to be of a truly menacing character but the person who sends it has to intend it to be menacing.

"Now people can have a joke even if it's a bad joke … this case should never have been prosecuted and it may be that the CPS will have questions to answer about this."

David Allen Green, Chambers's solicitor, said: "This shameful prosecution should never have been brought. For two and a half years the CPS have adopted a ridiculous position. There are very serious questions for the director of public prosecutions to answer in this case. We welcome this very clear judgment that sets out a high threshold for what constitutes a menacing character."

After the lord chief justice left the high court there was celebration and applause. The comedian Al Murray was one of those in court to support Chambers. "It's a victory for common sense," he said. "It's extraordinary this ever came to court. The judges saw there was no menacing message. It's a really important victory."

Asked outside the Royal Courts of Justice whether he would employ Chambers as a gag writer, Murray replied: "No."

Chambers swung his arm in mock defeat.

Index on Censorship, the free speech campaign, welcomed the court ruling. "Today's judgment is an advance in the justice system's handling of free speech on the web," said Kirsty Hughes, the organisation's chief executive. "As more and more of us use social media, it is important that the law understands how people communicate online. This ruling is a step in the right direction."

But Chris Watson, a social media expert and head of telecoms at the law firm CMS Cameron McKenna, said: "This verdict will be seen as a victory for freedom of speech campaigners, but I can see why the CPS pursued this case.

"The police have a duty to take all terrorism threats seriously, but specifically on the question of what people can say on social media, the public seems very unaware that the same rules apply to social media as any other public forum.

"While the ruling today suggests the threat to Robin Hood airport should not have been considered credible, the public would be very wrong to take this as a green light to say whatever they want on social media, without consequence. I expect to see the police and CPS to bring similar cases to court in an attempt to correct public misconceptions on where the law stands."

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Lord McAlpine's libel action against Sally Bercow has been formally settled at the high court.

Sally Bercow, who is married to the Commons Speaker John Bercow, was not at Tuesday's brief hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat in London.

Sir Edward Garnier QC told the judge that she had apologised for her "irresponsible use of Twitter", which caused the peer great distress and embarrassment, and had agreed to pay him undisclosed damages -– which had been given to charity -– and his costs.

She had also undertaken never to repeat the allegations about him and had withdrawn them unreservedly.

Bercow accepted an earlier offer to settle the matter after Tugendhat's ruling in May that a tweet posted by her was highly defamatory.

Her posting appeared two days after a Newsnight report last November wrongly implicated the former Conservative Party treasurer in allegations of sex abuse at Bryn Estyn children's home in the 1970s and 1980s.

Bercow denied that the tweet -– "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*" –- was defamatory, but McAlpine, who has already received six-figure payouts from the BBC and ITV, said it pointed the finger of blame during a media frenzy.

The judge agreed with McAlpine.

Bercow's QC, William McCormick, said: "Mrs Bercow wishes and hopes that as a result of this matter other Twitter users will behave more responsibly in how they use that platform. She certainly intends to do so herself."

Garnier said that, at the time of her tweet, Bercow had more than 56,000 followers and, as was foreseeable, a substantial number of them re-tweeted her "unsubtle message".

Afterwards, McAlpine's lawyer, Andrew Reid, said: "Today has seen closure of a piece of litigation which has now become the leading case in terms of internet responsibility.

"Our client had never wanted the situation to get to this stage. It was always his intention to avoid litigation if at all possible, just as it was always Mrs Bercow's intention, until today, not to provide an apology satisfactory to our client.

"It is to be hoped that lessons will be learned: This litigation could so easily have been avoided if common sense had prevailed over political positioning.

"In January of this year, Lord McAlpine made a 'without prejudice' offer to Mrs Bercow to settle at a substantially lower sum than his leading counsel, Sir Edward Garnier QC, advised that he was likely to obtain if the matter went to full trial.

"He made the offer in an attempt to avoid the detrimental effect of litigation on his health, but sadly, Mrs Bercow was not prepared at the relevant time to avail herself of this reasonable offer."

He added that it was now a legal requirement that, if Bercow were to re-activate her Twitter account, she must formally issue on it her apology.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

McAlpine v Bercow was a landmark legal case in 2013 between Conservative peer Lord McAlpine and Sally Bercow, the wife of John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons.

Background

Lord McAlpine alleged that he was defamed by comments implying that he was a paedophile published by Sally Bercow on Twitter, a social networking service.[1] This followed the broadcast on 2 November 2012 of a report by BBC Two's Newsnight which falsely linked an unnamed "senior Conservative" politician to sex abuse claims.[2][3]On 4 November 2012, Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"[4][5]

When the allegations against McAlpine proved to be unfounded, Bercow was one of a number of people that the peer threatened with legal action.[6] The BBC subsequently apologised and paid £185,000 to McAlpine in damages and the ITV television network paid him £125,000 in damages. McAlpine commenced legal actions against users of Twitter who had repeated the claims but users with fewer than 500 followers were allowed to settle the matter by making a donation of £25 to the BBC Children in Needcharity.[2][7][8] McAlpine donated the libel damages from BBC and ITV to Children in Need and other charities.[9]

McAlpine's lawyers said that they would continue to pursue 20 "high profile Tweeters" (users with more than 500 followers) including Bercow, comedian Alan Davies and writer George Monbiot.[4] Acting on behalf of McAlpine, solicitor Andrew Reid announced: "Twitter is not just a closed coffee shop among friends. It goes out to hundreds of thousands of people and you must take responsibility for it. It is not a place where you can gossip and say things with impunity, and we are about to demonstrate that."[10]

In November 2012, Monbiot published "Lord McAlpine – An Abject Apology" on his personal website and apologised for acting "in an unprofessional, thoughtless and cruel manner." Monbiot also wrote personally to McAlpine[11][12] and agreed to undertake charity work.[5][13] Davies apologised publicly and privately to McAlpine in November 2012.[14] In contrast, Bercow "consistently denied that her tweets were libellous" and in December 2012 she appointed the law firm Carter-Ruck to defend her against the claim.[7][15][16][17] At the time that the tweet was made she had 56,000 followers, described by Sir Edward Garnier QC, for McAlpine, as "a bigger readership than many regional newspapers."[5][18]

Judgment

At a preliminary hearing held on 16 April 2013 it was decided that the trial should be split into two stages. The first stage would decide if the words of the tweet could be considered defamatory. If this was found to be the case a second hearing would be held to determine the level of damages unless both parties were able to reach an agreement.[18]

The judgment in the first stage was handed down on 24 May 2013. The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat was asked to rule on the meaning of Bercow's tweet, particularly the phrase "innocent face" which the judge said was intended to be read "as a stage direction" with readers "imagining that they can see [Bercow's] face as she asks the question in the Tweet. The words direct the reader to imagine that the expression on her face is one of innocence, that is an expression which purports to indicate (sincerely, on the Defendant's case, but insincerely or ironically on the Claimant's case) that she does not know the answer to her question."[19][20]

The judge said that there were two different kinds of meaning recognised in law: "a natural and ordinary meaning" and "an innuendo meaning." Citing Jones v Skelton,[21] Mr Justice Tugendhat explained that a natural and ordinary meaning may be either the literal meaning or a meaning "that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge." An innuendo meaning, he said, "is a meaning which can be implied from the words complained of, but only if the reader also knows other facts (which are not general knowledge). These are generally called extrinsic facts."[22] The judge decided that any reasonable reader would understand both meanings of Bercow's tweet and interpret the "innocent face" as insincere and ironical: "There is no sensible reason for including those words in the tweet if they are to be taken as meaning that the defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question."[20][23] The judge decided that the Tweet meant "in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning, that the Claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care."[24] With regard to the innuendo of the tweet Mr Justice Tugendhat found that the Tweet carried a meaning "to the same effect" and found that the tweet was "an allegation of guilt. I see no room on these facts for any less serious meaning."[24][25] As it had already been accepted by Bercow prior to the hearing that McAlpine was innocent of the allegations her tweet was "seriously defamatory" and indefensible in law.[20]

Following judgment both parties reached an agreement and Bercow agreed to pay damages.[26] She must also apologise in open court to McAlpine. He has said that he will travel to London from his home in Italy "to hear it personally."[9]

Reactions

Prior to judgment Bercow made two offers to settle out of court. Both were rejected by McAlpine, leading to Joshua Rozenberg, a lawyer and columnist for London's The Guardian newspaper, to opine "that the undisclosed, agreed damages were higher than she had hoped."[20] McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said: "The apologies previously received from Mrs Bercow did not concede that her tweet was defamatory but clearly she must now accept this fact. Her failure to admit that her tweet was defamatory caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering to Lord McAlpine and his family over the last six months. The judgment is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to and guidance for people who use social media." Rozenberg noted: "The law of defamation is well known to those who write for a living. One hopes Twitter users are beginning to learn what a powerful and potentially dangerous weapon they have at their fingertips. A tweet is more like a broadcast than an email and is subject to the law of libel in the same way."[20]

Bercow said: "The High Court found that my tweet constituted a serious libel, both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. To say I am surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users."[5]

Patrick Strudwick, also writing in The Guardian, noted that on the day of the hearing many Twitter users tweeted: "Why is Sally Bercow trending? *libel face*", a humorous reference to her defamatory tweet.[27]

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

UPDATE: The comment section on this post is now CLOSED because I'm still getting whiny asshole comments months later from people who are too committed to hating Zoe Quinn to keep up with the facts, which include that her ex has admitted to wanting 4chan and other horrible troll sites to pick up on this, that he knew there was a high chance Zoe would be harassed, that he's been involved with the "leaders" of #GamerGate and coaching them on how to fuel the fire, that this whole thing is just entertainment for him, has violated his restraining order, has been caught in lies on numerous occasions and sexually harasses women who speak up against him. You can see all of this shit here. It's done. Shut the fuck up about it forever.

I'm getting all kinds of people insisting that Zoe Quinn is horrible, from clear misogynists to women who identify as feminists. All kinds of accusations -- that she used sex to get good reviews, that she was emotionally abusive to her ex, that she fake doxxed herself or invented her harassment. All kinds of people pontificating on how AWFUL she was to cheat, to sleep with a married man (even though she said she didn't know at the time that he was married, but no one's taking the time to mention this), to lie about it, etc.

Is cheating wrong? Yes. It's very hurtful, breaks trust, and depending on the couple and the situation, there can be consent issues involved. No one's denying this. Surely Zoe, whether these assertions are true or not, is not a perfect person.

But her ex is clearly not perfect, either. I'm here to talk about what he did to her in order to counter the chorus of voices painting Zoe as the devil and her ex as the blameless victim.

I don't know everything about the details of their relationship. And I certainly shouldn't, because I don't know either of them personally. I feel weird reading any of the Facebook or other online conversations between the two of them, because that's their private business.

But that shit is now online for everyone to see because Zoe's ex put it there without her consent. Huge fucking images containing long conversations between the two of them during their breakup, all posted in a public website he made to tell the world every detail of their falling out (from his point of view, anyway). Isn't that messed up? Imagine you had what you thought was a private conversation from your then-partner and then they posted all of it online without asking if it was okay.

This is a violation of consent. This is a violation of someone's privacy. Clear as day, right out there for everyone to see it.

Now let's talk about emotional abuse.

This is something that doesn't get talked about much. Most of the time when you bring up emotional abuse, people scoff and roll their eyes. A lot of people don't think that emotional abuse is a real thing, or that's is a lesser form of abuse than physical (untrue, many psychologists consider it to be worse). A lot of feminists will talk about gaslighting, but will get dismissed as making things up or being too sensitive, or called any number of ableist slurs.

Yet now that Zoe's ex has posted intimate details of their private breakup online, everyone's all about the emotional abuse. "Oh look!" they say after reading their private conversation, "Zoe was gaslighting him! She was emotionally abusive! Abuse! Abuse! She's a terrible abuser!"

I can't comment on whether Zoe was being emotionally abusive or not, because again, I do not feel right about reading their private conversations. I did look at some of it, specifically the parts where Zoe admits to cheating, but that felt icky so I stopped.

Now, I'm in the habit of believing people when they say they were abused. But it's a little difficult when what Zoe's ex has done is intensely abusive to the point of being dangerous. And even if you are abused, this does not give you leave to be abusive in return.

Zoe's ex obviously knew that Zoe had already been a target of harassment, death threats, rape threats, doxxing, people calling her at home and at least one guy showing up at her home. He must have understood that her continuing her work, remaining visible online, put her life in danger. Not to mention her mental health. He more than anyone, other than Zoe herself and women like her, should have understood this.

In spite of this knowledge, he decides to create an entire public website not only talking about her sex life (which we all know can derail any woman's career) but spills out a shit ton of fuel for the Zoe-hate fire. This is not just a violation of privacy, this is DANGEROUS. And, predictably, she's experienced a massive resurgence in harassment. This is not something you can deny. I've already engaged with Twitter accounts clearly made for the sole purpose of harassing and/or smearing her, seen a vile pornographic comic of her that's being spread by gamer dudes, and seen comment after comment calling her gross misogynistic slurs.

And I have no doubt at all that she's receiving death threats and rape threats. Again.

Yet despite the public nature of this harassment, the website hasn't come down. That WordPress site created by her ex to detail their entire relationship and post private conversations is still there.

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy? No. He is putting her at risk. He continues to put her at risk. Nothing justifies this. Cheating is wrong, but nothing justifies the endangerment of someone's life or the trauma of these massive, orchestrated harassment campaigns. At the very least, he fueled all of this. He is responsible for it.

Sounds like abuse to me. Does not sound like the behavior of a good person who would be great in a relationship. If you're abusive after the relationship, I am not going to believe you were a saint during.

Zoe, on the other hand, refuses to talk about the details of her private relationship with her ex. She has declared publicly that she will not take the bait because it's no one's business. She took the classy, respectful route. Not that he deserves it.

It pisses me off that the only time people want to talk about emotional abuse is when they want to smear a woman or use it to justify their hatred/harassment of her. Fuck that. You want to take emotional abuse seriously, I'd best hear about her ex's abusive behavior as well. Maybe Quinn can't be held up as a saint, but she's still inspiring to me. I know I wouldn't be able to resist the bait. I would lash back out at a guy who did that to me. Maybe even go into hiding to avoid the harassment. But she stands strong. That's incredible.

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

One-in-five young people has been cyberbullied, according to a research across 11 countries.

A fifth say they felt suicidal as a result.

The survey also found that more than half of the 5,000 teenagers who took part thought being targeted online was worse than face-to-face bullying.

Vodafone and YouGov carried out the poll in countries including the UK, Spain, New Zealand and Ireland.

What it found among the victims

Forty-one per cent said online abuse left them feeling depressed or helpless.

Izzy Dix on the beachImage caption Fourteen-year-old Izzy Dix took her own life after being cyberbullied

A quarter had closed down their social media accounts, with almost 40% saying they couldn't tell their parents, because of feeling scared or worry that they might get involved.

Around 40% said they would find it hard to support a friend being been bullied, but seven out of 10 would "be likely to use an emoji to express compassion or support".

Newsbeat recently brought you a series of reports looking at teenage suicide after the death of 14-year-old Izzy Dix.

You got in touch with us through Facebook, Twitter and text message to tell us how and why Izzy's story had affected you.

"I experienced suicidal thoughts as a young person and it was a massive relief to finally speak up," wrote Rachel.

"Online bullying has become so much more embedded," said Charlotte.

If this is sounding familiar to you you can get more on these BBC Advice pages.

The Department for Education is spending £7m on tackling cyber bullying and a spokesman said: "We have strengthened teachers' powers to tackle bullying by giving them the freedom to search for and delete inappropriate images from phones and other electronic devices.

"We have also made clear that teachers can discipline and investigate cases of bullying outside school."

Rise In Teens Shamed In Cyberbullying Videos: A growing number of young people are becoming victims of shocking videos which accuse them of promiscuity or disloyalty.by Rebecca WilliamsSky News ReporterMarch 25, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

The NSPCC has condemned videos being uploaded on the internet where youngsters are encouraged to name and shame friends they consider to be promiscuous or disloyal.

Some of the so-called 'baiting out' videos have received hundreds of thousands of views online and some of those producing the content are earning a decent wage.

Cassidy Valentine, 21, who was named in one of the videos, insists they are a form of cyberbullying.

She told Sky News: "I was pretty embarrassed. I was more shocked than anything.

"I was worried about whether I would receive hate and people wouldn't like me."

The videos are being made primarily in London, but also in Telford and Birmingham.

Following complaints, police in the Midlands are now investigating.

Sky News has seen one video filled with expletives and sexual content that was made by children in school uniform, who look no older than 13.

Alan Wardle, from the NSPCC, said: "The children in these videos are teenagers, many of whom are worrying about their own development and their own sexuality ... and for this material to be on the internet, and for people they don't even know to see it, is deeply distressing."

A survey published today by teachers' union NASUWT has found that 50% of teachers know of pupils who have used social media to share material of a sexual nature, and 25% know of students involved in 'sexting' who are just 11 years old.

There are a number of YouTubers making baiting out videos.

AlpayB is one of the main contributors. However, he's now decided to change his content as he no longer considers it appropriate.

Theo Ajiey, 23, is another video maker who encourages people to name disloyal friends.

He told Sky News: "I don't personally think the videos are bullying. They're just banter, a bit of fun.

"For example, in one of the videos, a guy baits out his own mother."

Following criticism some of the video makers have now removed their content.

YouTube has said in cases where graphic content is uploaded, it is careful to apply warnings and age restrictions to safeguard people using the site.